Why Haven't Two Clocks on a Table Been Used to Measure Light's One-Way Speed?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by StarThrower
Hello Ms. Nereid, I believe Martin said ALL of them.

:)

What Martin actually wrote was: "There have been exactly zero tests of SR." IOW, no one has tested SR. What he didn't say was whether any of the tests in the list I provided were a) predictions of SR, b) done, and c) consistent.

The strange thing is, I've asked this of all SR and GR naysayers here at PF, and (apart from wisp) they are all mute (except re MMx).

 

[Martin Miller]

StarThrower wrote:
"Martin, I do not understand why clock synchronization is so
important to you, since actual clock readings fall out of the
mathematical analysis. In SR all that matters is how the
'amount of time of an event' in one inertial reference frame
relates to the amount of time of the same event viewed in a
different inertial frame."

I would love to see the reaction if you posted the above in the
relativity newsgroup. Anyway, I can now see why my messages are
not getting through here. In no way do clock readings "fall out
of the math analysis." For example, it is only because Einstein's
clocks are asynchronous that light's one-way, two-clock speed is
found to be invariant and isotropic, so it is only because of
the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks that SR exists.

Given absolutely synchronous clocks (or their equivalent, namely,
clocks with a known difference), light's one-way speed will *NOT*
be invariant, and it will *NOT* be isotropic, and we would say
"Goodbye" to all of SR! [see diagrammed examples below]

Does this sound as if clock readings "fall out"?
I don't think so!

StarThrower also wrote:
"I think the real question for you is, 'can one empirically
determine the value of X-Y?'"

Well, of course all we need to know is the absolute difference
between the clocks; that goes without saying, so why the heck
am I having to say it!?

StarThrower finally wrote:
"So I guess my question is, 'why do you need us to show that two
clocks cannot be brought into synchronization?'"

Because clock synchronization controls all one-way speed values,
including light's. (And there are one-way speed values in both
Einstein's transformation equations and his composition of
velocities theorem, so these are controlled primarily by clock
synchronization.)

You have to understand that the only difference between Galilean/
Newtonian physics and Einstein's is the two-clock value of light's
one-way speed, and this value is controlled by **synchronization**.
Galileo assumed truly or absolutely synchronous clocks, and this
gave him c ± v as light's one-way, two-clock speed. Einstein
mandated absolutely ****asynchronous****, which gave him the
_incorrect_ result of c for all.

Special relativity stands or falls on the single question of
clock synchronization. This is why clock synchronization is
of the utmost importance re flat space-time physics.

If I produce truly synchronous clocks (or their equivalent,
clocks with a known difference), then I will overthrow SR.

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"It is not so much that clock A must show the same time as
clock B, but simply that they have the same rate."

Apparently you never simply used a couple of clocks to measure
light's one-way speed on paper; I very strongly suggest that
you do this ASAP.

In fact, I will help you by doing it _now_, as follows:

First, I will use Einstein's asynchronous clocks
in a single inertial frame:
(frame speed is 0.6c wrt the light source S, about which
an emitted light sphere is assumed to remain symmetrical)
(distance is per an in-frame ruler which is contracted
by 20% due to its motion wrt the light source S)
(time T is per a clock with is at rest wrt S; time t
is per the clock which is moving wrt S at speed 0.6c)
([t] represents a clock which now reads time t)

[0]----1 LY----[-0.6]->0.6c
S~>light ray

...[1.6]----1 LY----[1]->0.6c
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~>light ray

Due to length contraction, the rod which is measured by the
in-frame rule to be 1 LY long is only 0.8 LY long. Due to the
frame's motion wrt S and its emitted light, the ray's effective
speed on paper is c - v. Thus, the time T is 0.8/(c - v) =
0.8/(1 - 0.6) = 2 yrs. Thus, the time t = gamma * 2 = 0.8 * 2
= 1.6 yrs. Of course, the light ray's speed per the frame's
observers is their ruler-measured frame distance of 1 LY divided
by their two-clock-measured time span of [1.6 + (-0.6)] - 0 = 1 yr.
So the light ray's measured speed is simply c, as it simply _must_
be in all Einsteinian frames.

It should be clear from the above that it is impossible to obtain
Einstein's necessary one-way light speed invariance for any frame
which moves wrt the light source _unless_ the frame's clocks are
absolutely _asynchronous_, but just to nail home this critical point,
I will now show what happens when truly synchronous clocks are used
to measure light's one-way speed:

[0]----1 LY----[0]->0.6c
S~>light ray

...[1.6]----1 LY----[1.6]->0.6c
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>light ray

As shown, the initial speed result is 1 LY/1.6 yrs = 0.625c, which
seems to tell the observers that their frame speed is 0.375c, but
they need to correct for clock slowing and rod shrinkage as follows:
The actual on-paper rod length is 0.8 LY, and the on-paper clock
time T is 2 yrs, so the corrected value of the light ray's one-way
speed is 0.8 LY/2 yrs = 0.4c, which yields the correct frame speed
of 0.6c.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
Given absolutely synchronous clocks (or their equivalent, namely,
clocks with a known difference), light's one-way speed will *NOT*
be invariant, and it will *NOT* be isotropic, and we would say
"Goodbye" to all of SR!

You are operating under the incorrect and unfounded assumption that SR is incorrect. You'll need to do better than using your own assumption as a proof.

It also appears you are using a definition of "synchonized" which has clocks operating at precisely the same rates without transformations in all frames. I'm not sure though, because as much as you are harping on synchronization, you have yet to actually define what you mean by it.

In any case, you've purposely structured the your assumptions in way that logically excludes the possibility of SR being correct. While that may be compelling to you, you can't simply assume anything you want and base a logical proof on it. Even the assumptions have to be grounded in reality. Yours are not.

You (and others) keep asserting your position to be correct without explanation. You can't simply assert you are correct and demand to be proven wrong. Science doesn't work that way. You have to actively prove your position correct with scientifically valid data and calculations.

In addition, a number of people have shown a number of flaws in your reasoning and you have declined to address the problems we found. Particularly, Nereid, several pages ago (in response to an assertion that SR hasn't been demonstrated in any experiments), linked a list of experiments proving SR and asked for specific problems you (and others) have with these experiments. No response. Here's that post again:

Eyesaw, in another thread in this very same sub-forum, I post two links to lists (with references) of tests of SR and GR. Your reply to my post was (excerpts): "Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test can be claimed to have confirmed SR ..."

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is 'you can make quite specific predictions from SR; you can do the experiments and make the observations; when you do, you find that the predictions are correct, to within the experimental/observational errors'. IMHO, that's all you can ask of a theory.

So, let's go look at the experiments on the lists:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to any question.

Until you guys can begin to address what the existing theories actually say and mean (not what you assert they say and mean, but what actual scientists say they say and mean) and tell us precisely where the flaws lie in the mountains of papers/experiments supporting them (pick one or two for a start), you haven't proven your point in our eyes.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller:

I think now what you refer to as absolute synchronization is in fact what others refer to as the absolute time of Newton and Galileo -- a single standard of time for all observers.

Back in Galileo and Newton's time, experimental equipment and technique were not as advanced as ours are. The best Galileo could say regarding the speed of light was that it must be very great if not infinite. However, by the time Einstein was beginning to ponder the matters that led to his 'miracle year' (1905), experiments began to show that Galilean-Newton relativity didn't seem to account for the facts of Nature very well. In particular the Michelson-Morley experiment shook physics quite a bit.

Eyesaw is not doing a good job of explaining the null results of experiments like the MMx. Can you do a good job? It seems as though light speed was not really infinite or practically so ('must be very great'), but was finite. Maxwell's electrodynamic equations predicted a single, fixed speed for EM radiation, but until Einstein, nobody really understood what it implied for physics.

Galilean relativity works fine as long as the speed of light is 'very great.' But, Einstein showed contradictions in Galilean Rel. when he analyzed in a single frame of reference what two observers moving wrt each other should observe.

SR (and GenRel) does permit each observer to use a single standard of time, but one standard for all observers turned out to be unworkable. Instead, at least conceptually, each observer was allowed to set up and use his own standard of time.

Your "not absolutely synchronized" objections misses the point that one can always analyze the physics of two observers moving wrt each other in a different frame, with a single standard of time.

One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Galilean relativity is to show that observers can get information faster than the speed of light. I know of no such experiment showing that this is possible.

 

[jdavel]

Martin Miller posted (again!):

"For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light speed invariance) has not been tested."


But that doesn't matter! To validate a theory in physical science, it's not necessary to prove (or even to test) the POSTULATES of the theory. The theory is validated or refuted by testing its PREDICTIONS. It doesn't even matter whether the postulates are testable. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER WHETHER THE POSTULATES ARE TRUE! If the theory is a good predictor, it's a good theory. If it's the best predictor, it's the best theory.

SR predicts (among other things) that measurements of time made with a moving clock will show it to be running slow compared to measurements made with the same clock when it's stationary, that measurements of the length and mass of a moving object will show it to be shorter and more massive than measurements on the same object when it's standing still. Experiments, with ever increasing precision, have tested these predictions (ad nauseum) for nearly 100 years. At the present time, it is by far the best predictor for the results of these experiments; no other theory even comes close.

 

[Martin Miller]

Was Einstein really a genius?

'Ms Nereid' (not 'Mr.') wrote:
"... please check this page, and tell us which tests failed."

Hello, Ms Nereid, I know where you are coming from because
I have seen that page many times. It contains only round-trip
cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not
one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR.
For example, see the following site which proves that all
rotating clock cases are expected to have null results: http://www.geocities.com/antirelativity/Rotating_Clock_Analysis.html

You have to know SR to know what could test it.

SR did not predict round-trip invariance or isotropy.
This was proved - at least the latter was proved - prior to SR.

SR does not pertain to intrinsic time dilation, but only to a
trivial and irrelevant point-of-view (apparent) "clock slowing"
caused by the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. (That SR's
"time dilation" does not pertain to the actual atomic rhythms
of clocks is extremely easy to prove, and here is a proof:
Any single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
one intrinsic atomic rhythm, and yet Einstein's observers in
various frames always will find _different_ "rhythms" for one
and the same passing atomic clock; therefore, SR's "time dilation"
does _not_ pertain to the physical or intrinsic atomic rhythm of
an atomic clock.) (Similarly, SR does not pertain to either
intrinsic rod lengths or to intrinsic mass.)

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the website you
referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you
requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff"
yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.

SR began when Einstein saw round-trip isotropy (given by the
Michelson-Morley experiment of course). Einstein then assumed
that round-trip isotropy implied both round-trip invariance and
one-way isotropy/invariance. Seeing that clock synchronization
controls all two-clock times, he saw that light's one-way,
two-clock speed depends on clock synchronization, so he then
related his clocks to obtain one-way invariance/isotropy.

At this critical point, we must decide whether Einstein had
a postulate or merely a clock synchronization definition.
But either way, Einstein loses.

Case I - Assuming that Einstein had a light postulate -
If Einstein had a light postulate, and if this postulate says
one-way, two-clock light speed invariance/isotropy, then _how_
can this postulate be tested?

The answer of course is as follows:
Only by using correctly synchronized clocks.

Case II - Assuming that Einstein had a mere definition -
If all Einstein had was a mere convention or definition for
relating clocks, then how can it be proved that his clocks
are correctly related?

One answer is as follows:
By proving that light's one-way, two-clock speed is indeed
invariant and isotropic - independently of his _definition_
(which _forces_ invariance and isotropy).

Do you see the logical circle which is wound tightly around
the neck of relativity?

Adding to the problems for SR is the fact that Einstein himself
explicitly (mathematically) admitted that the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics would NOT find his
precious invariance and isotropy in the one-way case. And
he was unable to prove that such clocks cannot exist.
[REF: "w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
(From _Relativity_ Chap. VII)]

SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to
correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper.

 

[Martin Miller]

russ_watters noted:
"You (and others) keep asserting your position to be correct without
explanation. You can't simply assert you are correct and demand to be
proven wrong. Science doesn't work that way. You have to actively prove
your position correct with scientifically valid data and calculations."

Wrong. I need not prove anything. It is Einstein who claimed that
light's one-way speed is invariant and isotropic. Thus it is he
(or his followers) who must prove this claim. (OTOH, I have proved
that the claim is dead wrong.)

russ_watters noted:
"In addition, a number of people have shown a number of flaws in your
reasoning and you have declined to address the problems we found.
Particularly, Nereid, several pages ago (in response to an assertion
that SR hasn't been demonstrated in any experiments), linked a list of experiments proving SR and asked for specific problems you (and others) have with these experiments. No response."

No one has found a single flaw. The Nereid-cited site does not
have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of
the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed
(where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be).

Can you prove Einstein's claim?
Can you even show - even on paper - _how_ it could be proved?

No, you cannot.

Therefore, SR's sole basis (Einstein's claim) is unproved, and
cannot be proved even on paper.

Does this sound as if SR is a valid scientific theory?

 

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Galilean
relativity is to show that observers can get information faster
than the speed of light. I know of no such experiment showing
that this is possible."

One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Einsteinian
relativity is to show that observers can get invariance and
isotropy for the one-way speed of light, but I know of no way
to show this experimentally, and neither do you.

(BTW, getting information faster than light has nothing to
do with the facts that Einstein's clocks are incorrectly
related and that truly synchronous clocks will yield a
variable one-way light speed.)

 

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 wrote:
"Eyesaw is not doing a good job of explaining the null results
of experiments like the MMx. Can you do a good job?"

I don't need to explain it, but many have claimed that SR
explains it. Can you explain how SR is supposed to have
explained the MMx null result? (Or do you believe that SR
cannot explain it?)

 

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller, is your preferred alternative to Einsteinian relativity Galilean Relativity? If not, what is it? Why continue to ride something that seems to be realistic no more?

Do you know about the binary pulsar systems? They involve one-way EM signals.

Look, nothing can be proven in science. You have to start with assumptions. This is a fact of life that I need not prove: YOU show us a fact that need not be assumed apart from facts of your own existence or facts inferred from them. You are going the wrong way by insisting on proof of something that may need to be assumed. Ultimately all that can be asked of a theory is that it predicts things correctly. Do you really believe Galiliean R. still does so?

 

[jdavel]

Martin Miller wrote:

"SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper."


As I posted previously, the test of a scientific theory is a test of its predictions not its postulates. However, since you're so adamant about the a measurement of the one-way speed of light being the only true test of SR, here's a test you could do, at least "on paper"?

Put a clock into the same orbit around the sun that the Earth travels in but trailing behind the Earth by, say, 90 degrees (i.e., three months). Now watch the clock through a telescope. If light speed depends on direction, you'll observe the clock speeding up and slowing down over the course of a year. If it doesn't, you won't.

How's that?

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by jdavel
Martin Miller posted (again!):

"For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light speed invariance) has not been tested."


But that doesn't matter! To validate a theory in physical science, it's not necessary to prove (or even to test) the POSTULATES of the theory. The theory is validated or refuted by testing its PREDICTIONS. It doesn't even matter whether the postulates are testable. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER WHETHER THE POSTULATES ARE TRUE! If the theory is a good predictor, it's a good theory. If it's the best predictor, it's the best theory.

Yes, quite so! Utility is the easiest way to determine the value of a theory. It makes predictions. Einstein made plenty of predictions via his theories, and they have plenty of utility. Recall E=Mc^2? What was that, a lucky guess? SR, GR, numerous contributions to early quantum theory.

No one is going to prove his theories wrong, but even more accurate ones may come along in the future. The same thing happened with Newton's laws of gravitational attraction, which are still quite useful today. Einstein did not invalidate Newton's work when he advanced General Relativity. So Newton's contributions are not diminished.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
Wrong. I need not prove anything. It is Einstein who claimed that
light's one-way speed is invariant and isotropic. Thus it is he
(or his followers) who must prove this claim. (OTOH, I have proved
that the claim is dead wrong.)...

The Nereid-cited site does not have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be).

So basically then your argument boils down to 'my assertions are correct and the entire scientific community is wrong.' Still not a very compelling argument.

 

[Nereid]

Ha, outandbeyond2004 beat me to it!

Consider the following thought experiment:

A very reliable clock is located at a very great distance, in a stable environment (= nothing of any significance changes over a period of a century). The clock emits signals across the EM spectrum, at a rate (according to itself) of 1 'tick' per second.

The clock is located, from our perspective, on the ecliptic* (= the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the solar system's baricentre). Martin has a radio, X-ray (some caveats), and optical observatory fixed on the surface of the Earth, and his position, relative to the solar system barycentre, is known to him - and all other PF members - to an accuracy of 1cm**. Eyesaw, wisp, and many others visit his observatory regularly, and have full access to all equipment. Indeed, they are free to install their own equipment at his observatory, to be sure that their own concerns about SR and GR are properly addressed.

What one-way test does Martin perform?

*To ensure that gravitational effects of the Sun are properly accounted for, there is, in fact, a set of accurate, distant clocks, at angular distances of 10^o, 20^o, 30^o, and 40^o above and below the ecliptic.

**Of course there's several years' effort to explain and convince all that the +/- 1cm is acceptable; for the purpose of this thought experiment, please assume this huge effort has resulted in consensus.

 

[Nereid]

Martin Miller wrote: *SNIP
No one has found a single flaw. The Nereid-cited site does not have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be).

Can you prove Einstein's claim?
Can you even show - even on paper - _how_ it could be proved?

No, you cannot.

Therefore, SR's sole basis (Einstein's claim) is unproved, and cannot be proved even on paper. Does this sound as if SR is a valid scientific theory?
*SNAP

At the risk of boring readers to death, the list contains:
- predictions from SR
- experiments to test those predictions
- results that are, within the experimental error limits, consistent with the predictions.

Are the predictions correctly derived (e.g. no mistakes in the math)?

Did the experimenters do what they said they did?

Are the results consistent with the predictions?

How hard is it to answer these questions?

Now to 'Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be)[/color]'. We could say "cool, let's go test it!", or we could say "assume this to be true for now; what predictions follow? how well do those predictions match experiments?"

Martin would like to do the former - OK, let's help Martin set up an experiment to do the test he wants.

Others are OK with the latter - and *all* such tests of SR pass with flying colours. Further, putting SR into QM produced QED (OK, this is a gross over-simplification), and QED, when tested in the lab, turns out to be the most accurate physics we've got, so far.

I hope your nose isn't too put out of joint Martin, but I personally am quite comfortable with proceeding to devise cosmological experiments, based on the assumption that SR (actually GR) is a valid description for the whole universe, at least from the time of last (neutrino) scattering.

 

[wisp]

Re quotes from russ_watters:

Regarding the Roland DeWitte experiment.

From what I have heard, his results aren't accepted as credible by the scientific community.

Unless a professional body repeats this experiment, they should not dismiss his findings.

Regarding the ether:

So until someone finds real, scientific, positive evidence to show that there is an ether, we cannot assume there is one. At the very least, ether theory fails on those grounds.

We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things.
So why do people readily accept Einstein's proposal that they are joined together?
If an ether-based theory gives the same answers as SR surely the ether theory has more credibility.

 

[Martin Miller]

Was Einstein really a genius?

jdavel claimed:
"SR predicts (among other things) that measurements of time made
with a moving clock will show it to be running slow compared to
measurements made with the same clock when it's stationary, that
measurements of the length and mass of a moving object will show
it to be shorter and more massive than measurements on the same
object when it's standing still. Experiments, with ever increasing
precision, have tested these predictions (ad nauseum) for nearly
100 years. At the present time, it is by far the best predictor
for the results of these experiments; no other theory even comes
close."

None of the above are SR predictions; all were given by Einstein's
clock synchronization definition, which preceded SR. Additionally,
all are mere point-of-view effects (as your phrase "show it to be"
indicated) which have nothing to do with real physics.

Real physics is interested not in observer-dependent, point-of-view
effects; real physics is concerned with real physical phenomena,
such as the intrinsic atomic rhythms of atomic clocks.

And we know that SR says nothing about an atomic clock's internal
rhythm because we can prove this as follows:

A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
_one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their
various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing
atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above); ergo, SR's
"time dilation" does _not_ pertain to actual clock rhythms, but
only to mere point-of-view "rhythms."

As a side line, I would like any relativist to tell us the
physical cause of SR's "time dilation." Why do observers in
different Einsteinian frames find that "a moving clock runs
slow"? I seriously doubt that Mr. jdavel could give an answer,
but of course this did not prevent him from jumping on my case
and screaming at me as if I were the world's worst crackpot!

SR makes exactly zero predictions which are not fully based
upon a mere definition of clock synchronization, so none of
SR's predictions are real predictions of what might happen
experimentally. Therefore, SR is not a scientific theory.

 

[Haelfix]

Any serious Ether proponent has to at the very least accept Lorentz invariance to even be remotely taken seriously by physicists now days.

Particle and astrophysicists see relativistic particles that obey SR every day in the lab. In fact, one usually takes the classical regime as a simplifying assumption when one begins a calculation, before we generalize to SR. Invariably, its the latter that is the observed behaviour. Often discrepancies can run as high as 4 or 5 orders of magnitude, it would be patently obvious if lorentz invariance was broken (and some physicist would get a nobel prize for the experiment).

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by wisp
We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things.
So why do people readily accept Einstein's proposal that they are joined together?
If an ether-based theory gives the same answers as SR surely the ether theory has more credibility.

Despite the facts that a) SR/GR are universally accepted and have been for over 80 years, that b) quantum theory has been made to work under the umbrella of SR, and c) there are no current rival theories which make predictions beyond the accuracy of SR/GR... it is really a fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

The truth emerges about why wisp started this thread, as I suspected. Naturally, if wisp thinks SR & GR are "absurd" then Einstein cannot be a genius, and it is actually wisp who is the genius for exposing the fraud.

wisp, start a thread called "SR is wrong" and debate the issue there. Please don't use a red herring about Einstein's intellect as a way to advance your alternative viewpoints when there is a perfectly good mechanism for doing that in this forum.

Your lack of understanding of what theory is used for is evident, and you would do well to learn more about this subject before continuing on this track. Whether or not there is a physical ether has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with special relativity. If you think that is central to the theory, you are reading something into it that is not present. Ditto for GR. Factually, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an ether and none of it affects GR at all.

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Impossible. Did you even try to do the math on this one?

Suppose the interferometer lies on the x-axis and is traveling in the direction of the positive x-axis with a speed of v.

Suppose we emit a photon from the left edge of the interferometer at time 0 when the left edge of the interferometer is at x-coordinate 0. (So the right edge has coordinate L).

IOW, at time 0:
The left edge has x-coordinate 0
The right edge has x-coordinate L
The photon has x-coordinate 0

Now, let's find at what time the photon strikes the right edge:
The formula for the photons position is

x = 0 + ct

The formula for the right edge's position is

x = L + vt

Setting the x-coordinates equal gives:

L + vt = ct

or

t = L / (c - v)


So, at time t = L / (c - v):
The left edge is at x-coordinate L v / (c - v)
The right edge is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)
The photon is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)

Now, let's find out when the photon strikse the left edge again.

The formula for the position of the left edge is

x = v t

The formula for the position of the photon is

x - L c / (c - v) = -c (t - L / (c-v))
simplifying:
x - L c / (c - v) = -c t + L c / (c - v)
x = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct

Setting the x-coordinates equal and solving gives:

vt = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct
t = 2 L c / ( (c - v) (c + v) ) = 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2)


So the photon travels for time 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2). In that time, it travels a distance of 2 L c^2 / (c^2 - v^2). Funny, but that seems to be inequal to 2 L.


And you get an even different distance if the inferometer is moving in a different direction!

You and outandbeyond are right on this one. All my posts were about how physics is not the same in different inertial frames if light is not source dependent so I'm not sure why I goofed when applying that logic to the MMX (I think I was trying too hard to allow for the possibility that light is not source dependent) But thanks for refreshing my memory of the math.

But I think my analysis of the situation for source dependence is correct, but feel free to check it:

For horizontal path:

rightwards: (c+J)t(right) = L+J(t(right))
c(t(right))+J(t(right))= L + J(t(right))
c(t(right)) = L

leftwards: (c-J)t(left) = L-J(t(left))
c(t(left))-J(t(left)) = L - J(t(left))
c(t(left) = L
so that roundtrip distance = 2L

upwards: (c+M)t(up) = L + M(t(up))
c(t(up)) + M(t(up)) = L + M(t(up))
c(t(up)) = L
downwards: same as upwards since the light is reflected at a 90 degree angle and in the direction of motion of the apparatus going downwards. Hence roundtrip distance = 2L,
which is the same as for left and rightwards, yielding a null shift.

M Stands for the VeLocitY CoMponent in the hypoteNuse directioN.

So the MMX actually proves source dependency of light, meaning
Galilean Relativity is correct and SR is not. QED.

As a reminder, the Galilean transformation is about how some event inside one inertial frame looks like using the coordinate system of a different inertial frame- the transformed event is not the actual experiment being performed inside the new inertial frame- thus there is no requirement for any transformed value to be constant (like the speed of light). Logically, it cannot since when you add velocity to a set of coordinates, every event from the old coordinates must obtain this velocity or velocity doesn't exist. This however does not mean that physics cannot be the same in all inertial frames since experiments performed inside different inertial frames are all source dependent (i.e., since all events inside the first inertial frame are "blown up or down" by the same amount, the relative coordinates between events inside the first frame are retained in the second frame- it's like when you blow up a picture, the distances between objects inside the picture are still the same, using the new scale). So Inertial frame M would can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame M, inertial frame L can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame L, inertial frame N can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame N, et al. Thus the Galilean relativity is logically consistent and consistent with every day observations and even experiments on light, such as the MMX.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

I will check Eyesaw's source dependency math, but let me note the observations of pions. These beasties like to go out in grand style, a big flash of light. They are light (sorry about the pun, I mean little mass), so can be accelerated to say 95% of the speed of light.

Eyesaw would say we'd see light at almost 2*c. Nay, nay, Eyesaw.

Also, one version of the MMx used sunlight and another used starlight, with apparently essentially the same result as those using sources of light that move with the interferometer. I can list references, if Eyesaw so desires.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
Regarding the Roland DeWitte experiment.

Unless a professional body repeats this experiment, they should not dismiss his findings.

Actually, you have it precisely backwards (or rather, while true, what you said is completely irrelevant): unitil a professional body (or easier still, a handful of credible peers) repeats his experiment, they cannot consider his findings to be valid.

That's just how science works. When people (generally laymen outside the scientific community, but sometimes scientists themselves) don't obey that, things like the Cold Fusion debacle happen.

And actually, laymen just tend to go for Pascal's wager: betting at low odds and low cost on a high payoff. What you're doing is worse: assuming DeWitt to be correct without verification simply because you like what he said.

We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things.

Who'se notion of common sense? Yours? It fits just fine with mine and the common sense of the scientific community. As Nereid likes to harp on, common sense is something that happens in your head and is completely unrelated to physics: physics is about experimentation, data, theory, prediction. You cannot dismis a theory that makes accurate, testable, repeatable predictions (the very things DeWitt has not done yet) just because you don't like it (do we need to discuss QM vs common sense?). What isn't science.

MM, you keep asserting the same things over and over and they don't get any more correct the more you say them. There are at least a dozen points brought up by myself and others that you have yet to address other than to simply dismiss.

This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding of what SR/GR does:

A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above);

A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything other than a lack of understanding of Relativity.

 

[outandbeyond2004]

I am not sure what Eyesaw means by source dependency. At first I thought he meant only dependence on the etheric speed of the primary source of light, but he seems to include the mirrors as well.

If Eyeshaw does, I do not understand why a mirror going at J wrt the ether would reflect light going at c + J so that it goes -c + J afterwards. Why not -c or maybe even -c-J? The latter might even be in accordance with the law of energy conservation.

I find it hard to believe that any experiments have been done with moving mirrors that show this sort of source dependency. What happens if light goes at c towards a mirror that goes at J?

I do not see that the math for the upwards and downwards trip makes any sense.

The upward mirror is moving J in the x direction, like the leftward mirror, NOT M, as far as I can understand. The light going upwards needs to have a velocity in the x direction or it will miss the mirror altogether.

I'll stop here and wait for explanation and clarification. Besides, maybe Eyesaw has at last seen the light by now.

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
'Ms Nereid' (not 'Mr.') wrote:
"... please check this page, and tell us which tests failed."

Hello, Ms Nereid, I know where you are coming from because
I have seen that page many times. It contains only round-trip
cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not
one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR.
For example, see the following site which proves that all
rotating clock cases are expected to have null results: http://www.geocities.com/antirelativity/Rotating_Clock_Analysis.html

You have to know SR to know what could test it.

SR did not predict round-trip invariance or isotropy.
This was proved - at least the latter was proved - prior to SR.

SR does not pertain to intrinsic time dilation, but only to a
trivial and irrelevant point-of-view (apparent) "clock slowing"
caused by the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. (That SR's
"time dilation" does not pertain to the actual atomic rhythms
of clocks is extremely easy to prove, and here is a proof:
Any single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
one intrinsic atomic rhythm, and yet Einstein's observers in
various frames always will find _different_ "rhythms" for one
and the same passing atomic clock; therefore, SR's "time dilation"
does _not_ pertain to the physical or intrinsic atomic rhythm of
an atomic clock.) (Similarly, SR does not pertain to either
intrinsic rod lengths or to intrinsic mass.)

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the website you
referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you
requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff"
yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.

SR began when Einstein saw round-trip isotropy (given by the
Michelson-Morley experiment of course). Einstein then assumed
that round-trip isotropy implied both round-trip invariance and
one-way isotropy/invariance. Seeing that clock synchronization
controls all two-clock times, he saw that light's one-way,
two-clock speed depends on clock synchronization, so he then
related his clocks to obtain one-way invariance/isotropy.

At this critical point, we must decide whether Einstein had
a postulate or merely a clock synchronization definition.
But either way, Einstein loses.

Case I - Assuming that Einstein had a light postulate -
If Einstein had a light postulate, and if this postulate says
one-way, two-clock light speed invariance/isotropy, then _how_
can this postulate be tested?

The answer of course is as follows:
Only by using correctly synchronized clocks.

Case II - Assuming that Einstein had a mere definition -
If all Einstein had was a mere convention or definition for
relating clocks, then how can it be proved that his clocks
are correctly related?

One answer is as follows:
By proving that light's one-way, two-clock speed is indeed
invariant and isotropic - independently of his _definition_
(which _forces_ invariance and isotropy).

Do you see the logical circle which is wound tightly around
the neck of relativity?

Adding to the problems for SR is the fact that Einstein himself
explicitly (mathematically) admitted that the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics would NOT find his
precious invariance and isotropy in the one-way case. And
he was unable to prove that such clocks cannot exist.
[REF: "w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
(From _Relativity_ Chap. VII)]

SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to
correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper.

Excellent.

 

[Nereid]

Maybe Eyesaw (and others) could devise an elaborate experiment - variant MMx - involving the sun and moving 'mirrors in the sky' - could be the Moon, or Jupiter, or an Iridium satellite (unless they've all de-orbitted). Phase info may get a little noisy (shall we say), and maybe the whole thing would have to be done in space, with satellites in different orbits, and nice shiny mirrors on them, ... but at least a good description of the 'in principle' experiment would allow us to see clearly what predictions Eyesaw would make.

How about it?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
Excellent.

Care to comment on the responses to MM's post? There've been a few

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
I am not sure what Eyesaw means by source dependency. At first I thought he meant only dependence on the etheric speed of the primary source of light, but he seems to include the mirrors as well.

If Eyeshaw does, I do not understand why a mirror going at J wrt the ether would reflect light going at c + J so that it goes -c + J afterwards. Why not -c or maybe even -c-J? The latter might even be in accordance with the law of energy conservation.

I find it hard to believe that any experiments have been done with moving mirrors that show this sort of source dependency. What happens if light goes at c towards a mirror that goes at J?

I do not see that the math for the upwards and downwards trip makes any sense.

The upward mirror is moving J in the x direction, like the leftward mirror, NOT M, as far as I can understand. The light going upwards needs to have a velocity in the x direction or it will miss the mirror altogether.

I'll stop here and wait for explanation and clarification. Besides, maybe Eyesaw has at last seen the light by now.

using -c-j doesn't change anything since the j still cancels and you
get -c(t(left)) = L- all I did was change the point of view. I used J and M to denote the velocity components of the mirror given to the light. If you dropped a bomb from a plane, it does not travel straight down because the bomb has a horizontal velocity component n addition to a vertical velocity component- which is kind of what M represents. I guess I am assuming projectile motion in empty space.
Let me think about the ether situation a little.

 

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 wrote:
"Martin Miller, is your preferred alternative to Einsteinian
relativity Galilean Relativity? If not, what is it? Why continue
to ride something that seems to be realistic no more?"

I do not need any alternative - I have pointed out the fact
that there has been no test of Einstein's light postulate
(the basis of SR), and I have presented experimental proof
that his clocks are incorrectly related temporally.

-----

russ_watters noted:
"So basically then your argument boils down to 'my assertions
are correct and the entire scientific community is wrong.' Still
not a very compelling argument."

See the above.

-----

Nereid wrote:
"Consider the following thought experiment:" etc., etc., etc.

Why can't you be scientific enough to either refute or
accept the result of my experiment which proved the
incorrectness of Einstein's clocks?

-----

Nereid noted:
"At the risk of boring readers to death, the list contains:
- predictions from SR
- experiments to test those predictions
- results that are, within the experimental error limits, consistent
with the predictions."

Are the predictions correctly derived (e.g. no mistakes in the math)?

Did the experimenters do what they said they did?

Are the results consistent with the predictions?

How hard is it to answer these questions?"

MM replies:
It is not hard at all, and I have already done so, more than once.
Why did you not pay attention?

Nereid continued:
"Now to 'Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's
one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as
they must be)'. We could say 'cool, let's go test it!', or we could
say 'assume this to be true for now; what predictions follow? how well do those predictions match experiments?'"

Nereid, you do not even know what _you_ are saying, so it's no wonder
that you cannot see what I am saying. But I will give you a chance to
prove that you do know what you are saying; simply tell us the
meaning of your above phrase "assume this to be true ..." Please
show on paper how two clocks on a table could possibly produce
one-way light speed invariance experimentally, even in your wildest
dream.

-----

Haelfix noted:
"Any serious Ether proponent has to at the very least accept
Lorentz invariance to even be remotely taken seriously by
physicists now days."

When did I say that I was an "Ether proponent"?
And who has proved the Lorentz invariance of light's one-way
speed? (No one has, but I did prove that this speed varies with
frame velocity, thereby disproving SR.)

Haelfix further noted:
"Particle and astrophysicists see relativistic particles that
obey SR every day in the lab."

Which part of SR says anything about the intrinsic masses of
particles?

If you had taken the time to read any of my recent posts, you
would have found my proofs that SR does not pertain to intrinsic
mass or to intrinsic clock rhythms or to intrinsic rod lengths.

I get tired of repeating myself to deaf ears.

 

[Martin Miller]

Was Einstein really a genius?

russ_watters asserted:
"MM, you keep asserting the same things over and over and
they don't get any more correct the more you say them."

When did you or anyone else refute the result of my
experiment which proved one-way light speed variance?

russ_watters also asserted:
"There are at least a dozen points brought up by myself and
others that you have yet to address other than to simply dismiss."

This is simply and merely a falsehood.

russ_watters further asserted:
"This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding
of what SR/GR does:

quote:
A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have
only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers
in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for
the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above);

A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions
comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks
on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR
and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized
with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data
resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address
that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything
other than a lack of understanding of Relativity."

Listen to me: The above quote from me already addressed this issue.
Don't blame me if you cannot understand this.

Which part of SR pertains to intrinsic clock rates?

Which part of SR proved that any clocks are synchronized?

Who has proved that the GPS clocks are synchronized?

Are you aware of the fact that GPS scientists simply and
merely assume that c is the value of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved the invariance of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved that SR has made any predictions that are
not totally based upon a mere definition?
(All times and speeds in both the Einsteinian transformation
equations and the Einsteinian composition of velocities
equation were found by using Einstein's clocks which were
related per his definition of "synchronization.")

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
...When did you or anyone else refute the result of my
experiment which proved one-way light speed variance? ...

Simple forum etiquette dictates you should abandon your thread hijacking and return to your already started thread "SR Question of the Century" on this same subject.